USA News and Discussions

[Time_Traveller]

More on this: -

Trump goes on late-night rant about ‘love’ for Ten Commandments and backs forcing it in public schools

22 minutes ago

Donald Trump has declared his “love” for the Ten Commandments and has called for them to be displayed in schools and other places in an all-caps, late-night post on his social media platform, Truth Social.

His post came after Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed legislation this week that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in the state. Elementary, middle and high schools, as well as public colleges, must all display posters no smaller than 11 by 14 inches and the commandments must be “the central focus of the poster” and “in a large, easily readable font,” the law states.

Louisiana is the only state in the country with such a requirement however it appears that it is one that the former president would like to expand.

“I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MANY OTHER PLACES, FOR THAT MATTER. READ IT — HOW CAN WE, AS A NATION, GO WRONG??? THIS MAY BE, IN FACT, THE FIRST MAJOR STEP IN THE REVIVAL OF RELIGION, WHICH IS DESPERATELY NEEDED, IN OUR COUNTRY. BRING BACK TTC!!! MAGA2024,” Trump wrote in the early hours of Friday.

On Friday, the federal judge presiding over Trump’s classified documents case in Florida is hearing arguments on a long-shot defense effort to get the indictment thrown out. It is the latest update in the slew of court cases facing the former president.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 66621.html

This is what I call the US turning into a Theocracy state.

[caltrek]

Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers
by Nina Martin
June 21, 2024

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) Every 16 hours in the US, a woman is gunned down in an act of domestic violence. Nearly 1 million American women have been shot or shot at by a current or former intimate partner; some 4.5 million have been threatened with a gun. Those appalling numbers would be even higher if Congress hadn’t enacted laws over the past 50 years prohibiting certain categories of abusers from possessing firearms, the leading cause of death in domestic violence homicides.

Now, in an 8 to 1 decision that is likely to have sweeping ramifications for other gun rights cases going forward, the Supreme Court has rejected an argument that could have gutted one of those protections for abused women and children, ruling that people who have domestic-violence restraining orders filed against them are banned from having guns. Read the opinion here.

The decision in US v Rahimi, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a 1994 federal law aimed at safeguarding victims of intimate partner violence for whom obtaining a protection order is both a vital step in breaking free from an abuser—and an act of empowerment that can increase an abuser’s rage. The court found that the prohibition on gun possession for people subject to restraining orders is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted by conservative justices in a landmark 2022 ruling.

“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Roberts wrote.

“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Roberts added. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Otherwise, he wrote, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to “muskets and sabers.” In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted, “Despite its unqualified text, the Second Amendment is not absolute.”

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... abusers/

caltrek’s comment: Sometimes the current Supreme Court comes to a reasonable conclusion. What is horrifying are some of the issues that it considers in the first place. This is especially the case given their proclivity to sometimes come to highly irrational conclusions, such as in their repeal of Roe v Wade and their findings in Citizens United.

[caltrek]

Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers

More on that from Jessica Corbett writing for Common Dreams:

Introduction:

"Thank goodness. Also, Clarence Thomas is truly evil."

That's how one progressive pollster responded Friday to the U.S. Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a law prohibiting individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.

Critics across the political spectrum called Thomas' lone dissent in the case "insane" and blasted the right-wing justice as "fucking awful," a "corrupt lunatic," and a "contemptible POS" who "continues to undermine the safety of women and disgrace the court."

Some pointed out that after Thomas was nominated to the court in 1991 by then-President George H. W. Bush, during the Senate confirmation process, Anita Hill accused the future justice of sexually harassing her. More recently, Thomas has faced demands for his recusal or even resignation because he took gifts from right-wing billionaires and declined to report them.

Additional extract:

Gun control advocates cheered Friday's ruling—which overturned a decision from the far-right U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—and what it could mean for future court battles.

Read more here: https://www.commondreams.org/news/supr ... nce-guns

[caltrek]

The Supreme Court Just Proved That Its Gun Rulings Have Been a Disaster
by Pema Levy
June 21, 2024

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) In his majority opinion in Rahimi, Chief Justice John Roberts walked back the most extreme consequences of Bruen. Looking for a scapegoat, he blamed the 5th Circuit for how it had applied Bruen in this case. “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Roberts wrote. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber… the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.” But the 5th Circuit arguably read the case correctly. Remember, Thomas wrote Bruen—and he reached the same conclusion as the 5th Circuit.

Their squabble underscores a more important point: Whether Thomas and the 5th Circuit or the other eight justices correctly applied Bruen is unknowable, because that decision called on the courts to evaluate gun laws with a subjective historical analysis, not a workable legal test. In Bruen, Thomas instructed courts to consider history, but cautioned that “not all history is created equal.” He advised that “analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” Helpful!

In a concurrence in Rahimi, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson laid into Bruen for sowing chaos. The contradictory analyses coming out of the lower courts “say there is little method to Bruen’s madness,” she wrote, adding that after Bruen, “confusion plagu[es] the lower courts.” This was bound to happen, she explained, because “canvassing the universe of historical records and gauging the sufficiency of such evidence is an exceedingly difficult task.”

Inadvertently, Thomas’ own, lone dissent in Rahimi makes this same point. By taking the same historical analogues and coming to the opposite conclusion of his colleagues, he tacitly acknowledges how difficult it is to apply Bruen. And he demonstrates just how radical the most limiting version of Bruen would be.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... rahimi/

[caltrek]

Democrats Are Trying to Repeal a Zombie Law That Could Ban Abortion Nationwide
by Julianne McShane
June 21, 2024

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) You may think medication abortion is safe from anti-abortion crusaders’ wrath after the Supreme Court swatted away a challenge to mifepristone—one of the two pills used in a medication abortion—last week.

But abortion pills—which accounted for more than 60 percent of abortions last year, according to the Guttmacher Institute—remain under threats from various forces, including state laws that have sought to restrict access and likely future court challenges. Another likely attack may come from the Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-obscenity law pioneered by a sex-hating man named Anthony Comstock that remains on the books and bars the mailing of “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.”

Some on the right have suggested Comstock be marshaled to ban medication abortion nationwide. Project 2025, an initiative led by dozens of conservative groups and spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, has said that under a Republican president, the Department of Justice should use Comstock to criminalize “providers and distributors of [abortion] pills.” Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative lawyer behind the Texas abortion ban, went further, suggesting that Comstock could be used to ban all abortions since both medical and procedural abortions require the use of materials sent by mail.

But the effects could still be devastating even if Comstock were just used to restrict abortion pills rather than ban all abortions. Telehealth abortions, in which providers virtually prescribe and mail pills to patients, have been on the rise ever since the FDA approved the mailing of abortion pills in December 2021, most recently accounting for nearly 1 in 5 abortions nationwide. So the marshaling of the Comstock Act to restrict the mailing of abortion pills could make access much more difficult, especially for low-income people, those in rural areas, and teens who may struggle to access in-person clinics.

Now, Democrats are finally trying to fight this so-called zombie law, by introducing legislation in Congress that would repeal the sections that most directly threaten abortion.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... ionwide/

[caltrek]

I know I am in a definite minority on the issue of the Ten Commandments, but I tend not to be too worried about their display in public places. A careful reading of those commandments gives all sorts of reasons for rejecting Trump’s leadership, as well as the leadership of other MAGA Republicans.

Consider:

Ten Commandments list & meaning

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
A definite warning against joining cults, such as the one that follows Trump.

2. You shall make no idols.
Also, a warning against cult worship?

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
A commandment with neutral implications.

4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
How many Christians follow this, not only for themselves, but for all of the other providers of goods and services that they may rely upon? Remember, keeping television and radio channels on the air involves people working.
This commandment may be the most violated of them all. Still, the spirit is to allow workers some rest in the course of a week’s work. There are many who work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. Is there any pity for them amongst Trump followers?

5. Honor your father and your mother.
A commandment with neutral implications. Except, it should be understood that there are parents that engage in extreme child abuse. Enlightened Christians understand that there may be valid exceptions on those grounds. Exceptions that may involve becoming wards of the state, etc.

6. You shall not murder.
Ok, I remember this as “Thou shalt not kill.” I suppose murder is a more narrow edict. Still, I would ask isn’t the pursuit of policies that promote ecocide a form of “murder”? Think global warming, pollution, etc.

7. You shall not commit adultery.
How many times has Trump committed adultery?
If one truly believes in this commandment, shouldn’t one want as a leader somebody who sets a good example in that regard?

8. You shall not steal.
Unless, of course you are a graduate of Trump University?
Or differentiate between fraud, as in the type for which Trump has been found guilty, and stealing?

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Fox news just had an approximately ¾ billion settlement against them for libel. Trump has also lost a civil case because of his lying about a victim of his sexual assault. There are also lies that spew forth on a daily basis from Trump and his followers, including the Big Lie concerning the 2020 election. An aspect of that big lie is that Biden stole the election.

10. You shall not covet.
…and of course Trump never covets?

[weatheriscool]

I agree. I don't understand how anyone that believes in such could ever vote for Trump! Trump is pretty much the anti-Christ.

[firestar464]

Watchdog wants Boebert barred from owning guns, accuses her of doing meth

https://www.americanmuckrakers.com/_fil ... c1ce24.pdf

[firestar464]

Public funds for religious charter school would be unconstitutional, Oklahoma high court says

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... r-BB1oRTjO

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

Supreme Court sidesteps ruling on emergency room abortion-access dispute

Source: NBC News

June 27, 2024, 10:25 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling on whether Idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with a federal law that requires stabilizing care for emergency room patients, including pregnant women suffering complications who may require abortions.

The court dismissed an appeal brought by Idaho officials, meaning a lower court ruling that allows doctors in the state to perform abortions in emergency situations remains in effect for now.

The decision, which leaves the legal question unresolved and has no impact in any other states, was widely expected after the Supreme Court on Wednesday inadvertently posted a copy online.

The court could take up the issue in a later case.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna159111

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent

Source: NBC News

Jun. 28, 2024, 10:24 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been a target of the right because it is seen as bolstering the power of "deep state" bureaucrats.

In a ruling involving a challenge to a fisheries regulation, the court consigned to history a 1984 ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

It is the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative justices have taken aim at the power of federal agencies. The ruling was 6-3 with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting.

At the time it was decided, Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, with the court ruling that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous. That was initially seen as a benefit to Republican officials in the administration who wanted to make regulations less onerous on businesses.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna145344

[firestar464]

Judge partially ends court oversight of migrant children, chipping away at 27-year arrangement

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ju ... r-BB1p5W2S

[caltrek]

Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent

Source: NBC News

Jun. 28, 2024, 10:24 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been a target of the right because it is seen as bolstering the power of "deep state" bureaucrats.

In a ruling involving a challenge to a fisheries regulation, the court consigned to history a 1984 ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

It is the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative justices have taken aim at the power of federal agencies. The ruling was 6-3 with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting.

At the time it was decided, Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, with the court ruling that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous. That was initially seen as a benefit to Republican officials in the administration who wanted to make regulations less onerous on businesses.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna145344

More on that by Jackie Flynn Mogensen:

(Concluding paragraphs):

(Mother Jones) According to NRDC lawyer David Doniger, who argued the original 1984 Chevron case before the Supreme Court, Chevron deference mattered because Congress can’t possibly weigh in on every last practice of every industry to which a law might apply. That’s what expert agencies are for, he argues, so it makes sense for judges to defer to them. “The only way our government can keep up with the problems that the modern world throws at us is if you have this partnership between Congress and administrative agencies,” he says.

Those who oppose Chevron, however, argue that the doctrine creates constitutional problems and that the interpretation of laws should be left to judges. As lawyer Roman Martinez said in his opening arguments for Relentless, Inc., Chevron “undermines” judges’ duty to interpret federal statutes using their “best and independent” judgment and encourages agency overreach.

In a backward way, the original 1984 case for which Chevron deference was named was actually a win for industry-minded conservatives; the court ruled in favor of the Reagan administration’s EPA, which had re-interpreted an amendment to the Clean Air Act in an effort to limit a pollution regulation. Since then, the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas have both argued in favor of Chevron. But after President Obama’s time in office, conservatives started souring on the doctrine.

No matter your views on Chevron, there’s no question overturning it will have major implications for how the country’s judicial system operates. Doniger argues that if judges are handed more power to interpret the law, agencies may be more “gun shy” in making policies, partisan groups may judge-shop in selected courts to challenge regulations they oppose, and there may be a general “lack of coherence” in which agency rules are overturned or upheld. In short, he said, it will diminish the government’s ability “to get stuff done.”

https://www.motherjones.com/author/jack ... mogensen/

[caltrek]

More on that:

'Unfathomably Cruel': Billionaire-Backed Justices Rule in Favor of Criminalizing Homelessness
by Brett Wilkins
June 28, 2024

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) "SCOTUS just criminalized homelessness."

So said numerous legal experts and advocates for the unhoused Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that local governments can enforce bans on sleeping outdoors, regardless of whether municipalities are able to offer them shelter space.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the justices ruled in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that officials can criminalize sleeping and camping on public property including parks, even when housing options are unavailable or unaffordable.

"We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go," said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, which represented unhoused Grants Pass residents in the case.

The decision overturned a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found bans on outdoor sleeping violated the 8th Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/gran ... v-johnson

[caltrek]

Progressive Democrats Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
by Olivia Rosane
June 29, 2024

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.

Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.

"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."

"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.

Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.

Read more here: https://www.commondreams.org/news/codi ... doctrine

[caltrek]

With the U.S. Supreme Court becoming the Extreme Court and the definite possibility of Trump winning the presidency, statewide measures can still convey a sense of normalcy and even progress. Some of the California ballot propositions listed below are reactionary in nature, but most are more progressive in nature. California can sometimes become a trend setter for the rest of the country (especially other blue states).

California 2024 Ballot Propositions


Introduction:

(Ballotpedia) As of July 5, 2024, 10 statewide ballot propositions have qualified for the ballot in California for elections in 2024.

HIGHLIGHTS

• California voters decided on a pair of bills appearing as Proposition 1 designed to make changes to the state's Mental Health Services Act on March 5, 2024.

• Five citizen initiatives have qualified for the ballot. The initiatives relate to changes to drug and theft penalties, the state's minimum wage, local rent control, Medi-Cal RX program regulations, and a tax on managed care organizations.

• The state legislature voted to send an additional four constitutional amendments to statewide ballots in November:
• an amendment to establish a right to marry and repeal Proposition 8 (2008);
• an amendment to require initiatives that change vote thresholds to supermajority votes to pass by the same vote requirement as is being proposed;
• an amendment to remove involuntary servitude as punishment for crime; and
• an amendment to lower the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local special taxes to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.

Read more here, including hyperlinks to the more detailed descriptions of the listed propositions: https://ballotpedia.org/California_202 ... positions

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]